MRI reduces variation of contouring for boost clinical target volume in breast cancer patients without surgical clips in the tumour bed

Al-Hammadi, Noora; Caparrotti, Palmira; Divakar, Saju; Riyas, Mohamed; Chandramouli, Suparna Halsnad; Hammoud, Rabih; Hayes, Jillian; Mc Garry, Maeve; Paloor, Satheesh Prasad; Petric, Primoz

MRI reduces variation of contouring for boost clinical target volume in breast cancer patients without surgical clips in the tumour bed

Volume 51 (2017): Issue 2 (June 2017)

By:

Noora Al-Hammadi, Palmira Caparrotti, Saju Divakar, Mohamed Riyas, Suparna Halsnad Chandramouli, Rabih Hammoud, Jillian Hayes, Maeve Mc Garry, Satheesh Prasad Paloor and Primoz Petric

Open Access

|Mar 2017

Figures & Tables

(A) Generalized conformity index (CIgen) and (B) accuracy index (AI) as a function of the cavity visualization score (CVS) for CT and MRI based contouring of lumpectomy cavity clinical target volume. None of the patients had surgical clips inserted in the tumor bed. Case numbers are indicated for each modality.

CT and MRI based contouring in two examples with high and low cavity visualization scores (CVS). Observers’ delineations are white and expert consensus (EC) contours black. (A) Case with a CVS of 4.8 on CT and 5 on MRI: mean generalized conformity index (CIgen), accuracy index (AI) and inter-delineation distance (IDD) were 0.79, 0.85 and 2.4 mm on CT and 0.80, 0.86 and 2.2 mm on MRI. (B) Case with a CVS of 2 on CT and 3 on MRI: mean CIgen, AI and IDD were 0.46, 0.61 and 6 mm for CT and 0.63, 0.73 and 4.5 mm for MRI.

Accuracy index (AI) and inter-delineation distances (IDD), based on the expert consensus (EC) delineation as the reference_ The differences in AI and IDD between CT and MRI were statistically significant (p < 0_05)

			CT						MRI

Case
		IDD [mm]			AI			IDD [mm]			AI

	Mean	SD	CoV [%]	Mean	SD	CoV [%]	Mean	(SD)	CoV [%]	Mean	SD	CoV [%]
1	2.1	0.8	38	0.88	0.02	3	1.8	0.58	32	0.88	0.01	2
2	3.6	1.9	53	0.78	0.1	12	3.2	1.9	59	0.83	0.02	3
3	3.9	2.6	67	0.67	0.07	10	3.2	1.8	56	0.78	0.02	2
4	2.3	1	43	0.75	0.06	8	2.3	0.9	39	0.77	0.05	6
5	6	4	67	0.61	0.15	24	4.5	2.1	47	0.73	0.14	20
6	2.6	1.1	42	0.82	0.02	2	2.6	1	38	0.83	0.02	2
7	6	4.1	68	0.64	0.09	14	3.6	1.8	50	0.76	0.05	7
8	2.4	1.2	50	0.85	0.02	2	2.2	1	45	0.86	0.04	4
9	3	2.9	97	0.81	0.04	5	2.9	1.8	62	0.80	0.05	6
10	4.5	3.5	78	0.77	0.07	9	3.3	2	61	0.84	0.02	2
11	3.3	2	61	0.74	0.09	12	2.5	1.3	52	0.83	0.02	3
12	3.4	2.3	68	0.77	0.06	8	3.6	1.7	47	0.80	0.02	2
MEAN	3.6	2.3	61	0.76	0.07	9	3	1.5	49	0.81	0.04	5

Results for inter-observer variation in contouring_ The difference in mean generalized conformity index (CIgen) between the CT and MRI based contouring was statistically significant (p = 0_007)

Case		CT			MRI

	Mean V [cm3] (SD)	CoV [%]	CIgen	Mean V [cm3] (SD)	CoV [%]	CIgen
1	198 (10)	5	0.85	106 (4)	4	0.87
2	241 (37.5)	16	0.69	256 (28)	11	0.77
3	108 (20.7)	19	0.56	125 (10)	8	0.75
4	75 (18.1)	24	0.64	92 (12)	13	0.69
5	175 (47.9)	27	0.46	217 (68)	31	0.63
6	140 (10.1)	7	0.76	125 (14)	11	0.76
7	103(39.7)	39	0.48	64 (2)	4	0.66
8	180 (22.5)	12	0.79	158 (14)	9	0.8
9	135 (19.8)	15	0.77	126 (20)	16	0.71
10	204 (44.3)	22	0.68	215 (19)	9	0.76
11	99 (14.4)	15	0.66	135 (11)	8	0.79
12	195 (27.3)	14	0.69	210 (29)	14	0.74
MEAN (SD)	154 (26)	18	0.67 (0.12)	152 (19)	12	0.74 (0.07)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/raon-2017-0014 | Journal eISSN: 1581-3207 | Journal ISSN: 1318-2099

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 160 - 168

Submitted on: Dec 5, 2016

Accepted on: Feb 19, 2017

Published on: Mar 17, 2017

Published by: Association of Radiology and Oncology

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 4 times per year

Keywords:

breast cancer,

contouring,

contouring variation,

MRI,

Related subjects:

Haematology, oncology

© 2017 Noora Al-Hammadi, Palmira Caparrotti, Saju Divakar, Mohamed Riyas, Suparna Halsnad Chandramouli, Rabih Hammoud, Jillian Hayes, Maeve Mc Garry, Satheesh Prasad Paloor, Primoz Petric, published by Association of Radiology and Oncology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Previous article Volume 51 (2017): Issue 2 (June 2017)Next article